Sotheby's chairman loses bid for half of former lover's $23m forturne

Mark Russell

Sotheby's Australia chairman Geoffrey Smith has lost his bid to snare up to half of his former partner’s $23 million fortune.

Mr Smith claimed the $2.9 million he was awarded for his 14-year relationship with prominent art dealer Robert Gould was ‘‘manifestly inadequate’’ but the state’s highest court disagreed.

The Court of Appeal’s Chief Justice Marilyn Warren, and Justices David Beach and Robert Osborn, dismissed Mr Smith’s appeal on Friday.

Neither Mr Smith or Mr Gould were in court for the decision.

Supreme Court Justice John Dixon had ruled in October 2012 after a five-week civil trial that Mr Smith was only entitled to receive $2.9 million, finding his evidence "carried a general flavour of exaggeration, enhancement of his role, and the fortuitous adoption of circumstance".

Justice Dixon said this was one reason why he had preferred Mr Gould's evidence to Mr Smith's, but made the point that he also had a deep suspicion of Mr Gould's commitment to the truth.

Advertisement

In their judgment, the appeal judges said the credibility of both Mr Gould and Mr Smith had been a major issue at the civil trial.

‘‘Mr Gould and Mr Smith were not model litigants,’’ the judge said.

‘‘They were both men who were shown, at trial, to possess the capacity to lie or dissemble at any time they thought they might get away with it.’’

‘‘In giving evidence [during the civil trial], Mr Gould was more forthright than Mr Smith. Indeed, at times, Mr Gould appeared to be quite candid about prior episodes of dishonesty. The same candour at trial does not appear from an examination of Mr Smith’s evidence.’’

The appeal judges said another issue at trial was Mr Smith’s alleged affair with former Melbourne deputy lord mayor Gary Singer.

Justice Dixon had found Mr Smith, executive chairman of Sotheby's and a former curator of Australian art at the National Gallery of Victoria, was having a long-term affair with Mr Singer before separating from Mr Gould in 2004.

The appeal judges found Justice Dixon ‘‘did not take the matter into account in a way unfairly prejudicial to the interests of Mr Smith’’.

‘‘The trial judge’s reasons as a whole reflect a careful examination and considered evaluation of the evidence as to the circumstances of the relationship as a whole," he said.

‘‘The ultimate figure of $3 million does not on its face strike us as manifestly inadequate.

‘‘To some extent this must be a matter of impression but it is a substantial sum by community standards and embodies the accrual of very substantial financial advantage to Mr Smith as a product of the relationship.’’